High Court rules in favour of Parliamentary oversight in Hobart Airport roadworks dispute

The High Court of Australia has overturned a decision by the full court of the Tasmanian Supreme Court, ruling in favour of the Tasmanian Attorney-General in a long-standing dispute over roadworks near Hobart Airport.

The case centered on whether the construction of a $46.4 million interchange by Hazell Bros Group Pty Ltd had breached s. 16(1) of the Public Works Committee Act 1914 (Tas), which mandates parliamentary oversight for public works.

The dispute began when Gregory Casimaty, a landowner near the project site, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in 2020. He argued that the roadworks differed from the $28.08 to $29.99 million project approved by Tasmania's Public Works Committee in 2017. Casimaty sought an injunction to stop the works until the amended project was referred back to the committee for further review. Hazell Bros was contracted by the Department of State Growth to complete the interchange.

In 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed Casimaty's claim, citing parliamentary privilege under the Bill of Rights 1688, which prevents courts from questioning proceedings in Parliament. The court found that adjudicating the differences between the approved and completed works would infringe this privilege. However, the full court of the Tasmanian Supreme Court later overturned this decision, ruling that s. 16(1) imposed a public obligation enforceable by the courts.

The attorney-general of Tasmania appealed to the high court, which granted special leave. At the high court, the attorney-general contended that s. 16(1) did not create an enforceable legal obligation but rather set conditions for parliamentary oversight. The appeal also raised concerns about parliamentary privilege, arguing that judicial examination of the project would contravene the protections afforded to parliamentary proceedings.

The high court agreed with the Tasmanian attorney-general, concluding that s. 16(1) was intended to ensure parliamentary, not judicial, control over public works. The court held that the conditions for commencing public works are matters for Parliament, reinforcing the principle that such decisions are within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. The ruling emphasised that the enforcement of these obligations lies with political accountability, not legal intervention.

As a result, the high court allowed the appeal, restoring the original decision to dismiss Casimaty's claim. This judgment reaffirms the boundaries between the judiciary and legislative branches, particularly concerning public expenditure and parliamentary privilege.